SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

section 161 to 164 of the Act. Accordingly, once the respective shares of the beneficiaries are found to be terminable, the income is required to be taxed in the hands of that respective sharer or the beneficiaries but certainly not in the hands of the Trustees which has already been shown in the present case. Accordingly, AO’s action

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

184 of Paper Book). Further, the appellant had also deducted TDS on such brokerage and commission which is evident from the quarterly returns of TDS filed by the appellant in Form 26Q (Refer page No. 188-241 of Paper Book). Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) had overlooked this aspect and has wrongly rejected the application of the Appellant. G. Because

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

184 (Rajasthan) has confirmed the requirement of clearly specifying the sub clause of section 270A(9), prior to concluding that assessee has misreported the particulars of income. INCOME TAX : Where GST Input Credit was mistakenly merged with expenses and same was suomotu surrendered by assessee by revising return, however revenue imposed penalty under section 270A, since revenue wasn't sure

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

184 (Rajasthan) has confirmed the requirement of clearly specifying the sub clause of section 270A(9), prior to concluding that assessee has misreported the particulars of income. INCOME TAX : Where GST Input Credit was mistakenly merged with expenses and same was suomotu surrendered by assessee by revising return, however revenue imposed penalty under section 270A, since revenue wasn't sure

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

184/-. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 at assessed income of Rs. 1,61,38,888/- against declared income of Rs. 70,33,180/- resultantly making an addition of Rs. 91,05,710/-. Being aggrieved with the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS on payment made to residents as specified in section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, the disallowance shall be restricted to 30% of the amount of expenditure claimed.” From the above it can be noted that amendment made by Finance Act 2014 is to remove unintended and undue hardship and therefore this amendment should be give retrospective effect

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

5. Principles of Natural Justice and Mandatory Opportunity for AO's Examination\nThe case reflects a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice,\nspecifically that additional evidence cannot be accepted without allowing the AO a\nreasonable opportunity to examine and rebut the said evidence. Rule 46A\nmandates that if new evidence is presented at the appellate level

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

184/-. Therefore, the AO completed the\nassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the IT Act, 1961 at assessed\nincome of Rs.1,61,38,888/- against declared income of Rs.70,33,180/- resultantly\nmaking an addition of Rs.91,05,710/-. Being aggrieved with the order of\nassessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who dismissed\nthe

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 M/S. KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR The 'Court' mentioned above in the definition of evidence would include all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence as defined under section 3. In section 3, Court is defined as follows:- "Court"-"Court" includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised

MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS) JP (2017) 87\ntaxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR\n192(SC) – The Hon'ble Court held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour\nof the assessee should be preferred.\n(e) CIT Vs K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC)\n(f) DCIT Vs Ratan Corpn

MANCAN FOUNDATION,UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1092/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :.................. Cuke Mancan Foundation, C.I.T.(Exemption) Vs. Udaipur. Jaipur. C/O-Shah Patni & Co. Chartered Accountants, S.B. One, Babu Nagar, Jln Marg, Jaipur- 302015. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaftm 7600 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Pramod Patni (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (In Short, The Cit(E)) Dated 27/06/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Grossly Erred In Fact As Well As In Law In Rejection The Application For Registration U/S. 12Aa Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant Company:

184 (Delhi - Trib.) iv. Rajasthan Cricket Association V ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 464 (Jaipur -Trib.) 5. Deduction of TDS on the amounts of Contributions / donation made by the contributors terming the contributions/ donations as a Sponsorship money for an Event/s with certain directives cannot make such 9 ITA 1092/JP/2019_ Manchan Foundation Vs CIT(E) Contributions as commercial receipt/s

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184\nRajasthan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88\nITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the\nassessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in\nCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC),\nDeputy

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184\nRajasthan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88\nITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the\nassessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in\nCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC),\nDeputy

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

184-JP-2022 for 5. A.Y 2009-10. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings U/s 147 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. A.O. grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction